I am sure that he is aware of the assessments within the report on prewar intelligence in regards to Iraqs WMD makes it abundantly clear that the intent of the regime was to bide their time until sanctions were lifted - making a huge ammount of money in the meantime - and then reactivating the programs once international scrutiny was lessened. The ambiguity of their disarment was probably due to the threat of Iran. Iraq had to remain a wildcard in respects to such things in order to appear stronger millitarily than it actually was. There were probably not massive stockpiles of material but what did exist was in all probability moved to Syria just before and during the war.

The charge that Saddam had volunterily abandoned aspirations of procuring WMD is false and what has been discovered since the war demonstrates this. His balls were being busted by the inspectors in the 1990's and he had to get rid of a good bit of it but the intent remained. If he was given opportunity in the removal of sanctions then the programs would have been reactivated. In addition the sanctions would have allowed continued smuggling of oil illegally by Iraq to the value of billions of dollars and would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

There is no magic wand solution to these problems; people loose either way.

Originally posted by ImOuttaControl Want me to give a list of names of people in the Clinton/Bush administrations and all the senators/representatives privy to the top secret information that agreed Saddam had WMD's? Want a list of countries also?

I can see your point, but of course one of the reasons for this is that Saddam, obviously, used to have weapons. And for that very reason, we got a UN resolution allowing for the inspectors to be let in. People forget that we had inspectors in the country before the war, who were unable to find any weapons, despite the fact that we supposedly knew exactly where they were.

I think the real revisionism going on here is the idea that the only two choices we had were to go to war or forget the whole thing.

As a side note, one of the reasons people like yourself forget about the inspectors is because the President was busy lying his ass off, saying that Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors in the country.

Originally posted by STING2 The end of the search for WMD in Iraq does not end the mystery surrounding what Saddam did with thousands of liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, thousands of Bio/Chem Artillery shells that SADDAM was supposed hand over or verifiably dismantle. There are many theories as to what might have happened, but no facts. It is a fact that SADDAM failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD per multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulfwar Ceacefire Agreement. This fact made military force a necessity in order to enforce the resolutions and agreements vital to the security and the stability of the region and the world.

Why was it a "necessity" to go to war? Where does it say that in order to "stabilize" a region you have to go to war? Isn't the region more UNstable than it was before the war? Somethings wrong here....

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons....We all know that. A trained ape knows that."

White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer said, "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."

stannix thanks for bringing up an excellent point which most of the media forget to point out.

Yes, many other governments and experts believed Iraq had "WMDs" ( I consider nukes to be the only true WMDs unless you have lots and lots of missiles but that is neither here nor there) BUT not all governments believed Iraq was an imminent threat and that it was necessary to go to war.

Many politicians have brushed aside the lack of WMDs by claiming others agreed but fail to mention the others did not support military action until the inspectors exhausted every possible lead.

Why was it a "necessity" to go to war? Where does it say that in order to "stabilize" a region you have to go to war? Isn't the region more UNstable than it was before the war? Somethings wrong here....

The United Nations made that determination in 1991 following the 1991 Gulf War. They saw what Saddam had done to the region over the previous 10 years, attacking four different countries, using WMD more times than any country in history, and killing hundreds of thousands of people and putting the planets vital energy supply at risk.

Because of the mass chaos and instability that Saddam had caused over the previous 10 years, Saddam was forced to agree to verifiably disarm of all WMD as well as pay for the damages done to the Persian Gulf area as a result of his aggression. The UN passed resolutions authorizing the use of military force if he failed to comply with the terms of the ceacefire and resolutions. It was rather obvious based on Saddam's past behavior and actions, that in order of the region to be truely secure, he had to either change his behavior through strict compliance with the UN demands, or be removed from power. Getting Saddam to comply peacefully was tried for nearly 12 years, way to long, and was ultimately a failure in achieving full compliance. That is why military force became the only option.

The three provinces out of Iraq's 18 provinces that have a Sunni majority are more unstable than before the war, but the rest of Iraq as well as the surounding region is more secure and stable than when Saddam was in power.

I consider nukes to be the only true WMDs unless you have lots and lots of missiles but that is neither here nor there

Then from the get go you are ignoring the principle components of Saddams weapons programs, the chemical and biological elements which can if used properly inflict massive damage upon civilian populaces.

I can see your point, but of course one of the reasons for this is that Saddam, obviously, used to have weapons. And for that very reason, we got a UN resolution allowing for the inspectors to be let in. People forget that we had inspectors in the country before the war, who were unable to find any weapons, despite the fact that we supposedly knew exactly where they were.

I think the real revisionism going on here is the idea that the only two choices we had were to go to war or forget the whole thing.

As a side note, one of the reasons people like yourself forget about the inspectors is because the President was busy lying his ass off, saying that Saddam wouldn't allow the inspectors in the country.

The real revisionism is the fact that people seem to forget that Saddam NEVER complied with one single UN resolution, let alone any resolutions regarding the verifiable disarmament of WMD.

When UN inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in November of 1998, they listed thousands of stocks of WMD that remained unaccounted for by Saddam. When they returned in 2002, Saddam failed to hand over or show what had happened to these stocks, a violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. Saddam had two choices, to either comply with all UN resolutions peacefully, or have coalition military forces remove him from power to insure the safety and security of the region.

It only took Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa, and Kazakastan a year or two to verifiably disarm of all their WMD. Those cases are all perfect models. Yet, 12 years after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had failed to do what those countries did in less than two years. Military action the case of Iraq was long overdue.

Originally posted by Scarletwine Bush is the only one that rushed to war when inspectors were in the country to determine exactly that.

Oh, by the way he's not embarassed he thinks it's funny. "no WMD's under here"

Inspectors spent 7 years in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 trying to work with Saddam to achieve full verifiable disarmament. At the end of 1998, they were forced out of Iraq and not allowed to return by Saddam for four years with thousands of WMD stocks still unaccounted for by Saddam. Saddam did NOTHING to account for those stocks when the inspectors returned in 2002. Its not the UN inspectors responsibility to go on an egg hunt to look for the unaccounted stocks. Its Saddam's responsiblity to hand over the intact stocks or show where the stocks were dismantled if that in fact happened at any point. It would have been foolish to return to the Saddam games of the 1990s when inspectors spent their days halted by the Iraqi military in front of buildings, while Iraqi troops removed the contents of the buildings from the back.

There are several models on how the disarmament process is to work and the length of time it takes. Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa and Kazakhstan all fully verifiably disarmed in under 2 years. After 12 years, Saddam failed to comply with even one of the 17 UN resolutions that had been passed against him under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations. 12 years is simply way to long for a matter of this seriousness to go unresolved and the military action taken in 2003 was several years overdue. Waiting 12 years to take this military action is anything but a rush to war.

Its simple, its a fact according to UN inspectors that Saddam failed to account for over a thousand liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells!

When and where did Saddam ever account for these stocks?

How many of the terms of the Gulf War Ceacefire agreement did Saddam comply with?

How many UN resolutions did Saddam comply with?

Has any UN inspector ever stated that Saddam fully and completely VERIFIABLY DISARMED of all WMD?

Complying with UN resolutions cannot be used as a reason for military action since many many many many countries allied with and against the US have failed to comply with the UN resolutions and not faced military action. Plus at the time, the US government was berating the UN to the point where it considered the UN to a non-player so it does not make sense to say one does not need UN approval to go to war while at the same time using the non-compliance of a country to a UN resolution as a reason for going to said war.

Anyway, where are WMDs then? In Syria and Lebanon? Iran? In a safety deposit box?

Frankly, unless they find some legitimate evidence this makes the US government look rather foolish and I really feel bad for all the people who sacrificed their children and the casualties who have to come home and try to rebuild their lives with injuries from the war.

If the rational for going to war from the beginning was to liberate a country from a dictatorship then I would have understood this reasoning. If is was to eliiminate a possible future threat to the US, well, Bush better get busy because there are dozens of countries out there that are a "future potential threat" to "freedom".

I have never understood how the most powerful, richest government in the history of the world with the largest military machine ever seen by man along with a ton of nukes was fearful of a pathetic despot in a tiny country with barely any navy, a weakened useless army, outdated equipment and cordened in with no fly zones after a decade of economic sanctions on the other side of the world.

I thought it was because it was time for the military guys to blow their wad and reload with new stuff for military contractors to sell to the government, but that's just me.

Originally posted by trevster2k stannix thanks for bringing up an excellent point which most of the media forget to point out.

Yes, many other governments and experts believed Iraq had "WMDs" ( I consider nukes to be the only true WMDs unless you have lots and lots of missiles but that is neither here nor there) BUT not all governments believed Iraq was an imminent threat and that it was necessary to go to war.

Many politicians have brushed aside the lack of WMDs by claiming others agreed but fail to mention the others did not support military action until the inspectors exhausted every possible lead.

The verifiable disarmament of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan and South Africa each took less than 2 years. Those are the models, yet in Iraq, the disarmament process had failed to achieve full verifiable disarmament after 12 years. The UN had already authorized the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply with the resolutions. At the end of the day its incumbent upon Saddam to either hand over unaccounted for stocks of WMD or show when and where they were dismantled so that their dismantlement can be Verified. Otherwise, its impossible to know where such stocks are unless one were to get lucky.